Finally: Bachmann rips on Romney

posted at 7:42 pm on November 29, 2011 by Allahpundit

Granted, Blitzer has to twist her arm to get her to do it, but she gamely rises to the occasion and hits all the flip-flopper bullet points when summoned. What makes this interesting, of course, is the suspicion that Bachmann is somehow in the tank for Romney, swinging for the fences against his chief rivals — first Pawlenty, then Perry, then Cain, now Gingrich — while going nice and easy on the one guy in the race who’s conspicuously RINO-ier than the rest. (Except for Huntsman, of course.) Why would a tea-party all-star like Bachmann treat Mitt with kid gloves? Time magazine thinks it knows:

If Bachmann’s former campaign manager Ed Rollins is to be believed, she’s gunning to be Romney’s No. 2. Why would Romney pick Bachmann, who is undisciplined, bombastic and controversial, to be his running mate? The appeal is actually greater than it might seem at first blush.

Romney, if he is the nominee, will enter the general election a weak candidate. If anything, the race thus far has shown that the base is desperate for anyone one else but him to be the nominee. Republicans will almost certainly not be fired up, especially the Tea Party flank. Much like John McCain in 2008, Romney will be facing enthusiasm numbers probably somewhere around 30% or less; indeed he’s hardly managed to break 30% in most GOP primary polls. Which means, his running mate will have to be someone beloved by the base.

For all the blame Team McCain dumped on Sarah Palin in the wake of their loss, she did what she was supposed to do: gin up excitement among the base for a candidate otherwise perceived as flawed by most diehard activists. McCain’s enthusiasm numbers went from 30% to 70% among registered Republicans. Romney will likely need a similar bump. And the No. 1 prerequisite for his veep will have to be an aggressive attack stance.

The claim about Rollins comes from this post last month at VDARE relaying something he “reportedly” said to campaign associates. No source, no quotes. The chances of Romney actually putting her on the ticket are precisely zero and Bachmann, who’s certainly no dummy, must realize that so I can’t quite believe she might be angling for it. Remember, Romney’s selling himself overtly on electability grounds, a guy whose administration will deliver soft-right technocratic competence. He doesn’t need a tea-party firebrand like McCain did to mobilize the base; conservatives’ fear and loathing of a second Obama term is enough to do that. And he really doesn’t need the “is she qualified to be one heartbeat away?” baggage that McCain and Palin had to deal with. Bachmann would help him with social conservatives but so could a lot of other potential VPs. Beside that, as a relatively inexperienced member of Congress who’s known more for tossing rhetorical grenades than getting stuff passed, what does she do for him? On what planet does Romney bypass Marco Rubio and Paul Ryan in order to roll the dice on Michele B?

Honestly, I think her softness towards Mitt is simply a mirror of Huntsman’s longshot hope in New Hampshire. Neither can win if the conservative vote splits several different ways. Their only shot is if the rest of the field crumbles and they end up in a two-person race with Romney, counting on the base’s contempt for the architect of RomneyCare to push them through.

. McCain’s enthusiasm numbers went from 30% to 70% among registered Republicans. Romney will likely need a similar bump. And the No. 1 prerequisite for his veep will have to be an aggressive attack stance.

He doesn’t need a tea-party firebrand like McCain did to mobilize the base; conservatives’ fear and loathing of a second Obama term is enough to do that.

The great, pathetic and revealing delusion at the heart of Romney, Inc. That is, a passive reliance on others’ primary emotions rather than any forceful, proactive effort to define the narrative and the battle. It won’t work. But it is how weaklings conform themselves to reality.

He doesn’t need a tea-party firebrand like McCain did to mobilize the base; conservatives’ fear and loathing of a second Obama term is enough to do that. And he really doesn’t need the “is she qualified to be one heartbeat away?” baggage that McCain and Palin had to deal with.

There was no tea party when Palin arrived and yes, the liberals claimed that she wasn’t qualified but are you really trying to suggest that she wasn’t qualified to be veep when the presidential candidate of the other party didn’t even have executive experience. The Dems got away with that talking point because RINOs like you refused to defend her.

Oh I am getting at what you are trying to do. People like yourself have been assuring us that the tea party can get a veep spot as long as the dreaded Palin wasn’t in the race herself. Some of them bought the Faustian bargain. Now you guys are trying to fob off the tea party from any place on the ticket. Perfect.

Yes, actually pissy, on three or four occasions. In one such instance, he implied that Brett hadn’t done his homework, in another that Brett was being disingenuous in only partially quoting him, and in another, if I recall, that he, Romney, had already answered the Romneycare questions “100 times” even in the last debate in case “you missed what I had to say”, or something to that effect.

Romney was uncharacteristically and overly defensive, almost in attack mode, and unnecessary, IMO. He did himself no favors in the interview.

BTW, why does anyone think Newt can win a general election? Has he ever run a national campaign before? Has he ever won in a blue state as a Republican? Is there evidence that he has any crossover appeal? Why do people think Newt from the House of Reps can win the presidency and Michelle Bachmann can’t?

BTW, why does anyone think Newt can win a general election? Has he ever run a national campaign before? Has he ever won in a blue state as a Republican? Is there evidence that he has any crossover appeal? Why do people think Newt from the House of Reps can win the presidency and Michelle Bachmann can’t?

sheryl on November 29, 2011 at 8:07 PM

Surely you are kidding here? Bachmann has been there 3 terms, and got what legislation passed?

Newt was the strategist that flipped the House after 40 years of Tip O’neill control.

Newt is going to be a disaster for the country. This is from his website on immigration:

If citizens of other nations want to invest and create jobs in America, then we should be making it easier for them to invest, work and potentially gain citizenship through an expanded EB-5 program. The EB-5 program grants permanent residency to overseas investors who create and maintain at least ten American jobs.

The existing EB-5 program, which sets as high as a $1 million minimum investment to be considered for legal residency, is too restrictive and selective. We must expand this program to allow for foreign entrepreneurs who may not have the capital yet, but have the ability to come to the United States and raise enough American capital to form a business.

This is essentially citizenship for sale, and will cause our housing prices to skyrocket just like Canada’s due to massive numbers of wealthy Chinese who want to launder their questionably attained money in American real estate. Shacks in Vancouver and Toronto run for millions.

If you thought our housing bubble five years ago was bad. Imagine if every Chinese in China can get US citizenship by buying a $200k home. A steal for most Chinese since a $200k home in China gets you a 80 square feet concrete box. Soon that home won’t be $200k anymore.

You can’t watch this interview and come away with any confidence this man can stand up to the national media.

First, he misrepresents Gingrich’s view on immigration — again — then explains away his lie by saying “I’ll let him state his own position.” And laughing. Odd, pointless laughter.

Then he’s barely brushed with questions about his larger pattern of inconsistencies before growing visibly agitated. He calls Baier’s list “inaccurate.” The list was totally accurate and not even complete. So a lie.

“This is an unusual interview,” he says, bizarrely, followed by another awkward ad inappropriate laugh.

Why was it an unusual interview? Baier’s questions were simple, polite and pertinent. They were tame by comparison to what he can expect from a hostile media.

But this is classic Romney – the weird interjection puttied over with insincere laughter.

He constantly refers to his “book,” a true tell as to his discomfort with extemporizing on the issues.

The rest was just words — zero inspiration, clarity, command. A game show host.

So, if I drive drunk and kill someone, that’s the fault Anheuser Busch and Honda? Give me a break….Romney is responsible for signing Romneycare…..not Newt, and not Heritage. A bad idea is a bad idea, no matter who proposes it. Universal health care wouldn’t be a good conservative idea if Heritage proposed it. Using your own silly logic, Obama isn’t responsible for Obamacare, and we should be ok with it anyway since Newt and Heritage proposed a similar theft of liberty.

And their anger at RomneyCare is misguided. If you want to be pissed, be pissed at Obama for bastardizing a conservative idea.

I wish you folks would make up your mind. On one hand, you tell us Romney had to sign a liberal Romneycare plan because he was governor of a liberal state, now you’re implying that he managed to pass a radical conservative plan in a liberal state. Which is it?

Or be pissed with the Heritage Foundation for coming up with the idea of the individual mandate first.

Try again. The idea of a health care mandate didn’t originate with the Heritage Foundation.

Try again. The idea of a health care mandate didn’t originate with the Heritage Foundation.

xblade on November 29, 2011 at 9:02 PM

Okay, I’m game: where do you say the idea originated? Both Romney and Gingrich justified their prior support for the healthcare mandate based on its conservative Heritage Foundation imprimatur. True enough, the individual mandate has been discussed whenever the conversation turned to health care reform even prior to early 80’s–probably since the Truman Administration since President Truman liked the idea of government-furnished healthcare, but when we talk about RomneyCare or ObamaCare mandates or the individual mandate idea Newt supported, the seminal work in that area is usually identified with the healthcare reform ideas promulgated by the Heritage Foundation.

You could bring up Otto Von Bismark, I suppose. He’s the first national leader to formulate and implement an early version of socialized medicine as it is recognized today. Or you could bring up the Progressive Era in the United States starting at the beginning of the 20th century.

You can’t watch this interview and come away with any confidence this man can stand up to the national media.

Romney wasn’t being attacked, so your use of the expression stand up is a tell.

First, he misrepresents Gingrich’s view on immigration — again — then explains away his lie by saying “I’ll let him state his own position.” And laughing. Odd, pointless laughter.

How did he misrepresent Gingrich’s views? He did not.

Then he’s barely brushed with questions about his larger pattern of inconsistencies before growing visibly agitated. He calls Baier’s list “inaccurate.” The list was totally accurate and not even complete. So a lie.

The list of alleged inconsistencies was accurate, but he took issue with whether he has in fact been inconsistent on those issues. He stood up to the claim he has been inconsistent on a lot of issues.

“This is an unusual interview,” he says, bizarrely, followed by another awkward ad inappropriate laugh.

Your comment is weird and awkward. You’ve obviously never been questioned in public. Mitt has a nice sense of humour.

Why was it an unusual interview? Baier’s questions were simple, polite and pertinent. They were tame by comparison to what he can expect from a hostile media.

And Romney responded appropriately to each one. Charles Krauthammer, whose intelligence and objectivity are preferable to some anonymous commenter like you, said Romney he did fine.

But this is classic Romney – the weird interjection puttied over with insincere laughter.

No, this is classic anti-Romney moronism.

He constantly refers to his “book,” a true tell as to his discomfort with extemporizing on the issues.

The rest was just words — zero inspiration, clarity, command. A game show host.rrpjr on November 29, 2011 at 8:57 PM

Romney speaks extemporaneously with ease. Read the book. You won’t be so ignorant.

Yes, actually pissy, on three or four occasions. In one such instance, he implied that Brett hadn’t done his homework, in another that Brett was being disingenuous in only partially quoting him, and in another, if I recall, that he, Romney, had already answered the Romneycare questions “100 times” even in the last debate in case “you missed what I had to say”, or something to that effect.

Romney was uncharacteristically and overly defensive, almost in attack mode, and unnecessary, IMO. He did himself no favors in the interview.

TXUS on November 29, 2011 at 8:03 PM

Oh, for Heaven’s sake, the two of you sound like girly boys in the girls’ locker room trying to look serious that you’ve a reason to be there.

If anyone was weird in that interview, it was Brett Baier (spelled?) who looked like he was holding back the tears while asking repetitive, nearly lame ‘questions’ of Romney.

Romney answered his questions and appeared to understand and even acknowledge that there was a “more lame than usual” aspect to the questioner, Brett.

Sometimes you boys have to grow up and let a man confront a taunt or two and not get all vaklempt about him doing it.

You know, with Gingrich’s bombastic snarling at nearly every turn at nearly everyone at some point or another, and Palin’s screaming ridicule of just about everyone else except ‘Alahhsakah’…then Romney comes on a Fox interview and is more direct than some people are comfortable with while not raising his voice or ridiculing anyone but answering the repetitive “questions” that he’s answered now five hundred thousand times while interviewers continue to bear that “we don’t understand this”…you know, I’m surprised Romney didn’t get up and end the interview just to make Brett feel more comfortable in his hour of near-tears.

And where was all this intense worry when McCain was loop-dee-looing all over the issues and trying to slap the knuckles of Republican voters?

Romney didn’t behave abnormally, wasn’t a problem for anyone including himself, didn’t display bad temper, he WADED THROUGH Brett’s questions with patience and repetition, despite it being obvious to everyone (including Romney) that Brett was posing rhetorical editorializing “questions” about issues that Romney’s addressed hundreds of thousands of times already.

I think what it is is some people just don’t want Romney to show any strength because that runs contrary to your needs to ruin and embarrass the man.

BTW, why does anyone think Newt can win a general election? Has he ever run a national campaign before? Has he ever won in a blue state as a Republican? Is there evidence that he has any crossover appeal? Why do people think Newt from the House of Reps can win the presidency and Michelle Bachmann can’t?

sheryl on November 29, 2011 at 8:07 PM

Great post sheryl, but don’t expect a substantive response from anyone on this site.

So, if I drive drunk and kill someone, that’s the fault Anheuser Busch and Honda? Give me a break….Romney is responsible for signing Romneycare…..not Newt, and not Heritage. A bad idea is a bad idea, no matter who proposes it. Universal health care wouldn’t be a good conservative idea if Heritage proposed it. Using your own silly logic, Obama isn’t responsible for Obamacare, and we should be ok with it anyway since Newt and Heritage proposed a similar theft of liberty.
a health care mandate didn’t originate with the Heritage Foundation.

xblade on November 29, 2011 at 9:02 PM

The concept of “moral courage” is utterly blasphemous evil to Romney supporters.

Romney wasn’t being attacked, so your use of the expression stand up is a tell.

What tell? He can’t stand up. Period.

How did he misrepresent Gingrich’s views? He did not.

He made a throwaway remark about Gingrich’s support of amnesty. Gingrich does not support amnesty. This was a continuation to his earlier opportunistic attack — which was a hasty and weasely rejoinder to begin with. Romney has made the same statements about long-term illegal residents as Gingrich.

The list of alleged inconsistencies was accurate, but he took issue with whether he has in fact been inconsistent on those issues. He stood up to the claim he has been inconsistent on a lot of issues.

Huh? The list was accurate. Period. The tapes exist of his flip-flopping on each issue.

And Romney responded appropriately to each one. Charles Krauthammer, whose intelligence and objectivity are preferable to some anonymous commenter like you, said Romney he did fine.

Strawman. I’m referring to his remark about the “unusual” interview. As to whether he responded “appropriately” to each question, I think you are correct — his answers were appropriate for Mitt Romney. (But if Krauthammer reports that the RINO did well, I guess that settles it.)

No, this is classic anti-Romney moronism

If you say it’s moronic to point out a tic of noticeable rhetorical oddity in the heat of political engagement, so be it. This tic was evident in his debates with Ted Kennedy in 1994 as well. He has a habit of blurting odd comments under pressure. Some men bear down and focus under pressure, but Romney, in addition to these peculiar eruptions, just prattles on more rapidly and squirmily. It is not confidence inspiring.

Romney speaks extemporaneously with ease. Read the book. You won’t be so ignorant.
Basilsbest on November 29, 2011 at 9:40 PM

I’m not sure how reading the book (or, more to the point, how writing the book) has anything to do with my judgment about his extemporaneous skills or his actual skills. They are different forms of communication. Again, the fact he refers to the book so many times indicates to me that he wishes to escape the interview. “Read the book,” he keeps saying, as a way of releasing the pressure. Gingrich, on the other hands, makes the salient points from his books come to life in the moment. If you want to dispute that, I understand. I don’t deny Romney is glib and talks up a storm. But, unlike Gingrich, and even some of the others, he doesn’t ever seem confidently engaged in the moment. He’s filling up the air with words. Like a game show getting through to the next commercial break.

Romney’s individual mandate is perfectly defensible. The issue is what does one do with free riders who refuse to insure themselves but then show up at the hospital when they need care.

There are three possible solutions. The first one is presumably the libertarian position: turn them away. Good luck defending that.

The second solution is to provide treatment and then chase the patient into bankruptcy and then tax the public to pay the deficiency. This position is so inefficient it sounds like it must be the liberal position (but apparently it’s not).

The third solution is the individual mandate. Everyone is responsible to provide for their own coverage. (This solution is efficient and rational. It must be the conservative position but, curiously, apparently, it’s not).

Those who oppose the individual mandate at the state level do so based on confused ideology rather than reason.

You can have the coercion of the individual mandate or the coercion of higher taxes which make the responsible pick up the costs of the irresponsible. Either way you have coercion. Romney’s coercion is more rational than the coercion of taxing the responsible to pay for the irresponsible.

Congratulations. There’s nothing in life as good the feeling of being in love.
Basilsbest on November 29, 2011 at 10:29 PM

I’m a Gingrich worshipper! Yes, that must be it.

If you can’t see the proactive energy and basic dramatic structure in a Gingrich answer — the obvious sense enjoyment in getting into the issue — as opposed to Romney’s choppy defensiveness and uneasiness, that’s a shame.

If you thought our housing bubble five years ago was bad. Imagine if every Chinese in China can get US citizenship by buying a $200k home. A steal for most Chinese since a $200k home in China gets you a 80 square feet concrete box. Soon that home won’t be $200k anymore.

haner on November 29, 2011 at 8:19 PM

Come on! If you are going to try and slam someone for their position at least get the facts about it straight. Having legal residency does not grant you citizenship or the right to vote. Only having legal status means you can still be deported pretty easily if you break the law. You make it sound like Newt is in support for an open borders policy which is the furthest from the truth. I know there are a lot of butt hurt folks out there that are mad because their candidate chose not to run in the first place or can’t seem to get over 5% in any poll or really have no coherent ideas on policy, can’t debate or cannot admit that they were wrong on passing some huge piece of legislation. There is at least one though that admits they were wrong to do some of the things that they did and gave them better clarity on how to go forward.